Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:“(3) For the avoidance of doubt, a relationship does not cease to be an intimate relationship for the purposes of this Act by reason only that it is no longer sexual in nature.”.

Deputies will recall that during Second Stage in the House and during the Seanad debates, certain issues were raised about the use of the term "intimate and committed relationship" in the provisions that specify who may apply for orders under the Bill. I also know that groups such as Women's Aid have expressed concerns about the issue in a formal submission on the Bill. The background to the matter is that section 60 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 introduced access to domestic violence orders for persons living together in intimate and committed relationships, replacing the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act 1996 that applied to persons living together as husband and wife. The intention was that same-sex couples who were not civil partners would have the same access to the protections under the 1996 Act as opposite-sex unmarried couples. The wording was taken from the definition of cohabitant in section 172 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The term "intimate and committed relationship" was framed to provide a threshold to which the court must have regard in deciding whether to make an order. While concerns raised by voluntary sector groups about the suitability of the wording were given careful consideration, it was decided to proceed with the amendment unchanged.

I have considered this matter further in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. I am of the view that it would not be in the interest of victims of domestic violence if perpetrators could try to avoid having orders made against them by arguing that the relationship was not committed, for example, because of their sexual activity with a third party, or because the victim of the violence had previously sought to end the relationship. This is particularly relevant to safety orders now that section 6(1)(a) of the Bill will remove the cohabitation requirement for couples who are not married or, indeed, couples who may not be in a civil partnership. Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, 19 and 20 provide that the term "intimate and committed relationship", where it applies in the Bill, will be amended to delete the words "and committed". To ensure protection for victims of domestic violence who are or were in an intimate relationship which is no longer sexual in nature, amendment No. 2 proposes to make clear that a relationship does not cease to be an intimate relationship for the purposes of the Bill merely because it is no longer sexual in nature. The text of the amendment is drawn from section 172(3) of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010.